9/3/2015 G.R. No.

L-15905

TodayisThursday,September03,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L15905August3,1966

NICANORT.JIMENEZ,ETAL.,plaintiffsandappellants,
vs.
BARTOLOMECABANGBANG,defendantandappellee.

LiwagandVivoandS.Artiaga,Jr.forplaintiffsandappellants.
JoseS.ZafraandAssociatesandV.M.FortichZerdafordefendantandappellee.

CONCEPCION,C.J.:

Thisisanordinarycivilaction,originallyinstitutedintheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal,fortherecovery,byplaintiffs
Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban, of several sums of money, by way of damages for the
publication of an allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang. Upon being summoned, the latter
movedtodismissthecomplaintuponthegroundthattheletterinquestionisnotlibelous,andthat,evenifwere,
saidletterisaprivilegedcommunication.Thismotionhavingbeengrantedbythelowercourt,plaintiffsinterposed
thepresentappealfromthecorrespondingorderofdismissal.

The issues before us are: (1) whether the publication in question is a privileged communication and, if not, (2)
whetheritislibelousornot.

Thefirstissuestemsfromthefactthat,atthetimeofsaidpublication,defendantwasamemberoftheHouseof
RepresentativesandChairmanofitsCommitteeonNationalDefense,andthatpursuanttotheConstitution:

The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and
breachofthepeace,beprivilegedfromarrestduringtheirattendanceatthesessionsoftheCongress,andin
goingtoandreturningfromthesameandforanyspeechordebatetherein,theyshallnotbequestionedin
anyotherplace.(ArticleVI,Section15.)

The determination of the first issue depends on whether or not the aforementioned publication falls within the
purviewofthephrase"speechordebatetherein"thatistosay,inCongressusedinthisprovision.

SaidexpressionreferstoutterancesmadebyCongressmenintheperformanceoftheirofficialfunctions,suchas
speechesdelivered,statementsmade,orvotescastinthehallsofCongress,whilethesameisinsession,aswell
asbillsintroducedinCongress,whetherthesameisinsessionornot,andotheractsperformedbyCongressmen,
eitherinCongressoroutsidethepremiseshousingitsoffices,intheofficialdischargeoftheirdutiesasmembersof
Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the
performanceoftheactsinquestion.1

Thepublicationinvolvedinthiscasedoesnotbelongtothiscategory.Accordingtothecomplaintherein,itwasan
openlettertothePresidentofthePhilippines,datedNovember14,1958,whenCongresspresumablywasnotin
session, and defendant caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines,onoraboutsaiddate.Itisobviousthat,inthuscausingthecommunicationtobesopublished,hewas
not performing his official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer or any Committee thereof. Hence,
contrarytothefindingmadebyHisHonor,thetrialJudge,saidcommunicationisnotabsolutelyprivileged.

Was it libelous, insofar as the plaintiffs herein are concerned? Addressed to the President, the communication
beganwiththefollowingparagraph:

In the light of the recent developments which however unfortunate had nevertheless involved the Armed
ForcesofthePhilippinesandtheunfairattacksagainstthedulyelectedmembersofCongressofengagingin
intriguing and rumormongering, allow me, Your Excellency, to address this open letter to focus public
attentiontocertainvitalinformationwhich,underthepresentcircumstances,Ifeelitmysolemndutytoour
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/aug1966/gr_l-15905_1966.html 1/3
9/3/2015 G.R. No. L-15905
peopletoexpose. 1wph1.t

It has come to my attention that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study by
someambitiousAFPofficers,withtheaidofsomecivilianpoliticalstrategists.

Then,itdescribesthe"allegedlythree(3)operationalplans"referredtointhesecondparagraph.Thefirstplanis
saidtobe"aninsidiousplanoramassivepoliticalbuildup"ofthenSecretaryofNationalDefense,JesusVargas,by
propagandizingandglamorizinghiminsuchawayasto"bepreparedtobecomeacandidateforPresidentin1961".
To this end, the "planners" are said to "have adopted the salestalk that Secretary Vargas is 'Communists' Public
EnemyNo.1inthePhilippines."Moreover,theP4,000,000.00"intelligenceandpsychologicalwarfarefunds"ofthe
Department of National Defense, and the "Peace and Amelioration Fund" the letter says are "available to
adequatelyfinanceapoliticalcampaign".Itfurtheradds:

Itisreportedthatthe"Planners"haveundertheircontrolthefollowing:(1)Col.NicanorJimenezofNICA,(2)
Lt.Col.JoseLukbanofNBI,(3)Capt.CarlosAlbert(PN)ofG2AFP,(4)Col.FidelLlamasofMIS(5)Lt.Col.
JoseRegalaofthePsychologicalWarfareOffice,DND,and(6)MajorJoseReynaofthePublicinformation
Office,DND.Toinsurethiscontrol,the"Planners"purportedlysentLt.Col.JobMayo,ChiefofMIStoEurope
to study and while Mayo was in Europe, he was relieved by Col. Fidel Llamas. They also sent Lt. Col.
DeograciasCaballero,ChiefofPsychologicalWarfareOffice,DND,toUSAtostudyandwhileCaballerowas
inUSA,hewasrelievedbyLt.Col.JoseRegala.The"Planners"wantedtorelieveLt.Col.RamonGalvezon,
ChiefofCIS(PC)butfailed.Hence,Galvezonisconsideredamissinglinkintheintelligencenetwork.Itis,of
course, possible that the offices mentioned above are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have
absolutelynoknowledge.(Emphasisours.)

Among the means said to be used to carry out the plan the letter lists, under the heading "other operational
techniquethefollowing:

(a)ContinuousspeakingengagementsalloverthePhilippinesforSecretaryVargastotalkon"Communism"
andApologeticsonciviliansupremacyoverthemilitary

(b)Articlesinmagazines,newsreleases,andhundredsofletters"typedintwo(2)typewritersonly"to
Editorsofmagazinesandnewspapers,extollingSecretaryVargasasthe"heroofdemocracyin1951,1953,
1955and1957elections"

(c)RadioannouncementsextollingVargasandcriticizingtheadministration

(d)VirtualassumptionbyVargasofthefunctionsoftheChiefofStaffandanattempttopackkeypositionsin
severalbranchesoftheArmedForceswithmenbelongingtohisclique

(e) Insidious propaganda and rumors spread in such a way as to give the impression that they reflect the
feelingofthepeopleortheoppositionparties,tounderminetheadministration.

Plan No. II is said to be a "coup d'etat", in connection with which the "planners" had gone no further than the
planningstage,althoughtheplan"seemstobeheldinabeyanceandsubjecttofuturedevelopments".

PlanNo.IIIischaracterizedasamodificationofPlanNo.I,bytryingtoassuagethePresidentandthepublicwitha
loyaltyparade,inconnectionwithwhichGen.Arellanodeliveredaspeechchallengingtheauthorityandintegrityof
Congress,inanefforttorallytheofficersandmenoftheAFPbehindhim,andgainpopularandciviliansupport.

Theletterinquestionrecommended.:(1)thatSecretaryVargasbeaskedtoresign(2)thattheArmedForcesbe
divorcedabsolutelyfrompolitics(3)thattheSecretaryofNationalDefensebeacivilian,notaprofessionalmilitary
man(4)thatnoCongressmanbeappointedtosaidoffice(5)thatGen.Arellanobeaskedtoresignorretire(6)
that the present chiefs of the various intelligence agencies in the Armed Forces including the chiefs of the NICA,
NBI,andotherintelligenceagenciesmentionedelsewhereintheletter,bereassigned,consideringthat"theywere
handpickedbySecretaryVargasandGen.Arellano",andthat,"mostprobably,theybelongtotheVargasArellano
clique" (7) that all military personnel now serving civilian offices be returned to the AFP, except those holding
positionsbyprovisionoflaw(8)thattheRegularDivisionoftheAFPstationedinLaur,NuevaEcija,bedispersed
by batallion strength to the various standby or training divisions throughout the country and (9) that Vargas and
Arellanoshoulddisqualifythemselvesfromholdingorundertakinganinvestigationoftheplannedcoupd'etat".

We are satisfied that the letter in question is not sufficient to support plaintiffs' action for damages. Although the
lettersaysthatplaintiffsareunderthecontroloftheunnamedpersonsthereinalludedtoas"planners",andthat,
havingbeenhandpickedbySecretaryVargasandGen.Arellano,plaintiffs"probablybelongtotheVargasArellano
clique",itshouldbenotedthatdefendant,likewise,addedthat"itisofcoursepossible"thatplaintiffs"areunwitting
toolsoftheplanofwhichtheymayhaveabsolutelynoknowledge".Inotherwords,theverydocumentuponwhich
plaintiffs'actionisbasedexplicitlyindicatesthattheymightbeabsolutelyunawareoftheallegedoperationalplans,
andthattheymaybemerelyunwittingtoolsoftheplanners.Wedonotthinkthatthisstatementisderogatorytothe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/aug1966/gr_l-15905_1966.html 2/3
9/3/2015 G.R. No. L-15905
plaintiffs,tothepointofentitlingthemtorecoverdamages,consideringthattheyareofficersofourArmedForces,
thatassuchtheyarebylaw,underthecontroloftheSecretaryofNationalDefenseandtheChiefofStaff,andthat
the letter in question seems to suggest that the group therein described as "planners" include these two (2) high
rankingofficers.

Itistruethatthecomplaintallegesthattheopenletterinquestionwaswrittenbythedefendant,knowingthatitis
falseandwiththeintenttoimpeachplaintiffs'reputation,toexposethemtopublichatred,contempt,dishonorand
ridicule, and to alienate them from their associates, but these allegations are mere conclusions which are
inconsistent with the contents of said letter and can not prevail over the same, it being the very basis of the
complaint.Thentoo,whenplaintiffsallegeintheircomplaintthatsaidcommunicationisfalse,theycouldnothave
possiblymeantthattheywereawareoftheallegedplantostageacoupd'etatorthattheywereknowinglytoolsof
the "planners". Again, the aforementioned passage in the defendant's letter clearly implies that plaintiffs were not
amongthe"planners"ofsaidcoupd'etat, for, otherwise, they could not be "tools", much less, unwittingly on their
part,ofsaid"planners".

Wherefore,theorderappealedfromisherebyaffirmed.Itissoordered.

Reyes,J.B.L.,Barrera,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Bengzon,J.P.,Zaldivar,SanchezandCastro,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Veravs.Avelino,77Phil.192Tenneyvs.Brandhove,341U.S.367Coffinvs.Coffin,4Mass1.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/aug1966/gr_l-15905_1966.html 3/3